Energy dissipation differs between females with and without chronic ankle instability

Chronic ankle instability (CAI) is associated with altered energy dissipation patterns, but comparisons to lateral ankle sprain (LAS) copers have not been explored. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in relative sagittal plane energy dissipation during a single-leg landing between female CAI and LAS coper participants. We separated 33 females (23.6 ± 4.6 years, 164.3 ± 6.2 cm, 69.4 ± 13.7 kg) into CAI (n = 17) and LAS coper (n = 16) groups. Participants completed 5 single-leg landings followed by a 5-second stabilization. We collected sagittal plane kinematics and joint moments at the ankle, knee, hip, and proximal joints (knee and hip) combined then calculated each joint's energy dissipation at 50, 100, 150, and 200 ms post-landing. We compared the percentage of total energy dissipated by the ankle, knee, hip, and proximal joints during each interval utilizing independent t tests and Cohen's d effect sizes. Statistical significance was set a priori at P < .05. The CAI group had lower relative energy dissipation from the ankle at 50 (24.7 ± 11.5% vs 39.2 ± 11.8%, P < .01, d = 1.25 [0.47, 1.95]), 100 (66.9 ± 19.4% vs 77.7 ± 6.5%, P = .04, d = 0.74 [0.01, 1.42]), and 150 ms (70.7 ± 17.8% vs 81.0 ± 5.7%, P = .03, d = 0.77 [0.04, 1.46]) compared to LAS copers. The CAI group had a greater hip contribution through 150 ms (17.9 ± 10.7% vs 11.7 ± 4.4%, P = .04, d =-0.75 [-1.44, -0.03]) and the proximal joints at 50 (75.3 ± 11.5% vs 60.8 ± 11.8%, P < .01, d = -1.25 [-1.96, -0.47]), 100 (33.1 ± 19.4% vs 22.3 ± 6.5%, P = .04, d = -0.74 [-1.42, -0.01]), and 150 ms (29.3 ± 17.8 vs 19.0 ± 5.7%, P = .03, d =-0.77 [-1.46, -0.04]) compared to LAS copers. Females with CAI may benefit from therapeutic exercises designed to correct a single-leg energy dissipation strategy that relies less on the ankle joint.

Visual word recognition: reattending to the role of spatial attention

Three experiments examine whether spatial attention and visual word recognition processes operate independently or interactively in a spatially cued lexical-decision task. Participants responded to target strings that had been preceded first by a prime word at fixation and then by an abrupt onset cue either above or below fixation. Targets appeared either in the cued (i.e., valid) or uncued (i.e., invalid) location. The proportion of validly cued trials and the proportion of semantically related prime-target pairs were manipulated independently. It is concluded that spatial attention and visual word recognition processes are best seen as interactive. Spatial attention affects word recognition in 2 distinct ways: (a) it affects the uptake of orthographic information, possibly acting as "glue" to hold letters in their proper places in words, and (b) it (partly) determines whether or not activation from the semantic level feeds down to the lexical level during word recognition.

A dual-task investigation of automaticity in visual word processing

An analysis of activation models of visual word processing suggests that frequency-sensitive forms of lexical processing should proceed normally while unattended. This hypothesis was tested by having participants perform a speeded pitch discrimination task followed by lexical decisions or word naming. As the stimulus onset asynchrony between the tasks was reduced, lexical-decision and naming latencies increased dramatically. Word-frequency effects were additive with the increase, indicating that frequency-sensitive processing was subject to postponement while attention was devoted to the other task. Either (a) the same neural hardware shares responsibility for lexical processing and central stages of choice reaction time task processing and cannot perform both computations simultaneously, or (b) lexical processing is blocked in order to optimize performance on the pitch discrimination task. Either way, word processing is not as automatic as activation models suggest.

Visual word recognition: reattending to the role of spatial attention

Three experiments examine whether spatial attention and visual word recognition processes operate independently or interactively in a spatially cued lexical-decision task. Participants responded to target strings that had been preceded first by a prime word at fixation and then by an abrupt onset cue either above or below fixation. Targets appeared either in the cued (i.e., valid) or uncued (i.e., invalid) location. The proportion of validly cued trials and the proportion of semantically related prime-target pairs were manipulated independently. It is concluded that spatial attention and visual word recognition processes are best seen as interactive. Spatial attention affects word recognition in 2 distinct ways: (a) it affects the uptake of orthographic information, possibly acting as "glue" to hold letters in their proper places in words, and (b) it (partly) determines whether or not activation from the semantic level feeds down to the lexical level during word recognition.

The role of spatial attention in visual word processing

Subjects made lexical decisions on a target letter string presented above or below fixation. In Experiments 1 and 2, target location was cued 100 ms in advance of target onset. Responses were faster on validly than on invalidly cued trials. In Experiment 3, the target was sometimes accompanied by irrelevant stimuli on the other side of fixation; in such cases, responses were slowed (a spatial filtering effect). Both cuing and filtering effects on response time were additive with effects of word frequency and lexical status (words vs. nonwords). These findings are difficult to reconcile with claims that spatial attention is less involved in processing familiar words than in unfamiliar words and nonwords. The results can be reconciled with a late-selection locus of spatial attention only with difficulty, but are easily explained by early-selection models.

The role of spatial attention in visual word processing

Subjects made lexical decisions on a target letter string presented above or below fixation. In Experiments 1 and 2, target location was cued 100 ms in advance of target onset. Responses were faster on validly than on invalidly cued trials. In Experiment 3, the target was sometimes accompanied by irrelevant stimuli on the other side of fixation; in such cases, responses were slowed (a spatial filtering effect). Both cuing and filtering effects on response time were additive with effects of word frequency and lexical status (words vs. nonwords). These findings are difficult to reconcile with claims that spatial attention is less involved in processing familiar words than in unfamiliar words and nonwords. The results can be reconciled with a late-selection locus of spatial attention only with difficulty, but are easily explained by early-selection models.